Has Time Been Good To The Teachings Of Bruce R. Mcconkie And Joseph Fielding Smith?

[David T]

Every generation or so, there's a re-boot, and someone who comes along to re-systemitize and "normalize" LDS theology. Parley P. Pratt was the first (with the combined Voice of Warning and Key to the Science of Theology). B.H. Roberts and James Talmage came next (Talmage even re-edited the canon, and reworked the headers in the Triple). Their successors were Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie. (Bruce R. seems to have been aware of his role, as his final book, perhaps his magnum opus, was called 'A New Witness for the Articles of Faith', calling to mind B.H. Roberts' 'New Witnesses For God', and James Talmage's 'Articles of Faith'. Having already attemped to surpass 'Jesus the Christ' with his Messiah series)

I think Robert Millet &c with their LDS Doctrine are striving to be the Next Generation of the systemetizers. Roberts and Talmage have gone out of style (except, interestingly, for Talmage's Jesus the Christ), and McConkie has now gone out of print. McConkie and JFS still, however, survive in old yet-to-be-replaced manuals, Chapter headings, and Bible Dictionary.

If patterns continue, I'm predicting the next full printed edition of the Standard Works will either drop the headers (in favor of something like Grant Hardy's narrative divisions), or heavily revise them.

I actually view such attempts to be fascinating, and fantastic for charting progression in Mormon thought.

Edited July 6, 2012 by David T

[robuchan]

I think Robert Millet &c with their LDS Doctrine are striving to be the Next Generation of the systemetizers. Roberts and Talmage have gone out of style (except, interestingly, for Talmage's Jesus the Christ), and McConkie has now gone out of print. McConkie and JFS still, however, survive in old yet-to-be-replaced manuals, Chapter headings, and Bible Dictionary.

Stephen Robinson was the lead figure in this but then all of a sudden fell off the map. What's he doing now?

[Craig Paxton]

I don't agree with the word "many" and I am not entirely comfortable with the word "untrue".

However, do we all agree that the relatively few things we may disagree with Bro. McKonkie, are inconsequential in relation to our growth in faith in the restored gospel, and certainly not the kinds of things that ought to be used to takUe the measure of the man over time?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So Wade what words would you use that equate to "more than one" or "incorrect". Just curious

Thanks,-Craig Paxton-

[ERayR]

In which he says...

After reading that statement, ask yourself how likely it is that God used an evolutionary process involving countless generations of procreation and death in "creating" the plants and animals before Adam and the Garden of Eden?

Read it again and let your mind meditate on the permutations of that statement. I think you may be surprised at the possibilities in that statement.

[ERayR]

Way back in post #59 John Ping Pong perpetuates oft repeated, and from my understanding fallacious, ideas about Elder McConkie and the the publishing of Mormon Doctrine. President McKay asked Elder McConkie not to reprint a second edition but then changed his mind and asked Elder McConkie, with the editorial help of Elder Kimball, to reprint the second edition of Mormon Doctrine in 1966.

I also understand that the changes embodied in the new edition contained no significant doctrinal changes and only softened the tone of potentially controversial doctrines.

Additionally, you can ponder the thought that if Elder McConkie directly disobeyed a directive from the First Presidency in 1966, what is the likelihood that he would be called as an apostle in 1972?

I also find it interesting that critics like to downplay and even demonize the significance of Elder McConkie's contributions in the doctrinal developement of the LDS church. Even active members of the church have fallen victim to the false ideas that abound regarding Elder McConkie and Mormon Doctrine. The simple fact is that Elder McConkie's contributions have withstood the test of time in spectacular fashion and will continue to do so. Not only because large portions of the current Bible Dictionary borrow heavily from Mormon Doctrine and that he wrote all of the chapter headings in the LDS standard works, but because of his divine call as an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ.

It is my understanding that the brethren of the Quorum of 12 are not sock puppets of the Prophet.

[ERayR]

So we're all in agreement then that Bruce R. McConkie taught many things that he believed to be true at the time he taught them but with the passage of time have been shown to be untrue...I just want to make certain that we at least can agree on this point.

Please quit ushering all into your pews. I don't see that were all in agreement with your premise.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

For the purpose of this post let me state emphatically that I am only referring to those teachings that have been shown to be false….and I freely acknowledge that many of their timeless teachings continue as touchstones of inspiration for many in the church today.

Let me state that I was once a huge fan of both Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie… I loved and respected both of these men as servants of God in part because you knew exactly where they stood on difficult doctrinal positionsO…neither of them was wishy washy or feared taking a stand, particularly when it came to Mormon Doctrine. Unlike many leders in the church today, neither of these men feared taking a position even when it flew in the face of reality and contrary to the prevailing thought of the day. However despite being great giants in Mormonism…I would dare say that time has not been kind to either of their legacies. The black and white thinking and so many of the teachings that both of these men taught as truth has been eroded by scientific advancement and many of their other teachings have been shown, with the passage of time, to be blatant falsehoods.

While I do not hold them responsible for this reality since they were merely reflecting the general thinking of their day…how are believing members of the church able to reconcile the fact that these men and other black and white thinkers in the church like them got it so wrong. Despite claiming inspiration directly from God…They got so many things wrong at the very time when they were claiming divine inspiration and revelation. If these men got God’s revelations and inspiration to them so wrong, how are we to accept any of Gods revelations to anyone who makes similar claims to this same revelatory power today? Why would God allow his chosen leaders to teach so many falsehoods as truth at the very same time they were claiming direct communications from God. How are members of the church today supposed to process and reconcile this reality?

I am disappointed at many who have thrown them under the bus, to toss anti's a bone.

[Lightbearer]

So we're all in agreement then that Bruce R. McConkie taught many things that he believed to be true at the time he taught them but with the passage of time have been shown to be untrue...I just want to make certain that we at least can agree on this point.

NO, a million times NO! I would never agree with slandering an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, even if I stand alone! (Which from some of the posts I have read I do not think I am alone.) I am sick and tired of the bleating of goats who are trying to dishonor men who were spiritual giants. I would never agree with the "accuser of the brethren" who try to undermine faith by trying to discredit those who stood in faithfulness and held keys of authority. It is just another way of Anti-Mormon scum trying to discredit the current general authorities of the church by implication.

Tone it way down if you want to stay in the thread.

[David T]

NO, a million times NO! I would never agree with slandering an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, even if I stand alone! (Which from some of the posts I have read I do not think I am alone.) I am sick and tired of the bleating of goats who are trying to dishonor men who were spiritual giants. I would never agree with the "accuser of the brethren" who try to undermine faith by trying to discredit those who stood in faithfulness and held keys of authority. It is just another way of Anti-Mormon scum trying to discredit the current general authorities of the church by implication.

What? To simply acknowledge that someone legitimately and firmly believed something and expressed something that turned out not to be accurate isn't slander, or an attack. While some can use such information as a basis for an attack, the information in and of itself isn't.

I respect and honor Elder McConkie as an Apostle. Auxilliary to that function, he presented his understanding of scriptural matters that was influenced by his particular method of scriptural interpretation. He made guesses and assumptions that were wrong. That's not slander (or libel).

If I were to accuse Elder McConkie of deception, or intentionally misleading individuals, that would be an 'attack'. Expressing that he sincerely expressed his understanding of quite a few things that may turn out - or have turned out - not to have been correct in and of itself is not an accusation of wickedness.

Goodness, McConkie himself publicly stated he (and other leaders, including a President of the Church) was wrong on the topic of Blacks and the Priesthood, and noted that his earlier incorrect statements weren't based on complete information. He wasn't slandering himself. It was an expression of humility.

I acknowledge that Elder McConkie was most likely incorrect with many of his scriptural interpretations and assertions. I also acknowledge that, at the very same time he was expressing these incorrect ideas, he was fulfilling his apostolic calling by powerfully testifying and sharing his Witness of Jesus Christ.

Edited July 8, 2012 by David T

[Rivers]

In which he says...

After reading that statement, ask yourself how likely it is that God used an evolutionary process involving countless generations of procreation and death in "creating" the plants and animals before Adam and the Garden of Eden?

I'll wait for Jesus to come back and explain it all which is what he propmised to do in the Doctrine and Covenants.

[Rivers]

Goodness, McConkie himself publicly stated he (and other leaders, including a President of the Church) was wrong on the topic of Blacks and the Priesthood, and noted that his earlier incorrect statements weren't based on complete information. He wasn't slandering himself. It was an expression of humility.

If McConkie could admit to being wrong about one thing, it opens up the possibility that he was wrong about a lot of other things.

I just wish that his teachings weren't so prevalent in the CES.

[wenglund]

So Wade what words would you use that equate to "more than one" or "incorrect". Just curious

Thanks,-Craig Paxton-

The words I would use are the words I did use.

Now, please answer my question.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 8, 2012 by wenglund

[DBMormon]

Seeing how we explain quotes of leaders as possibly being incorrect and some say that they sustain the leader but not everything they say, do we give the same allowance for doctrine taught in the bible or bom? Is it possible that many of the scriptures we read and use to explain the kingdom were given by a prophet or apostle not speaking as a prophet and apostle? Could we have many quotes and scriptures we hold in high esteem be no different then the things you guys are discussing here?

[thesometimesaint]

DBMormon:

Doctrines? Yes

Personal opinions? No

[cdowis]

So we're all in agreement then that Bruce R. McConkie taught many things that he believed to be true at the time he taught them but with the passage of time have been shown to be untrue...I just want to make certain that we at least can agree on this point.

Hmmm

We can agree that McConkie himself took responsibility for everything in the book,and many were correct and some need revision based on an increase of our understanding and continued revelation.

[why me]

If McConkie could admit to being wrong about one thing, it opens up the possibility that he was wrong about a lot of other things.

I just wish that his teachings weren't so prevalent in the CES.

Most of us go through life with being wrong eventually. This does not nor should not reflect on us as human beings since being wrong is part of being human. I have never believed that GAs walk through the day in a constant state of being connected with god. They open their mouths and say things as human beings and at times as god's servants but most of the time as human beings. I am sure that Bruce R. was wrong about things too and learned from his wrongs.

[why me]

Seeing how we explain quotes of leaders as possibly being incorrect and some say that they sustain the leader but not everything they say, do we give the same allowance for doctrine taught in the bible or bom?

I think that GAs are between a rock and a hard place. For GAs, words out of their mouths are automatically classified as coming from god. That is quite a pressure to put on someone. I wouldn't want to be a GA that is for sure. I would not handle the pressure of preparing a general conference talk knowing that all are thinking that every word comes from god's mouth. And I would know that I would come up short on such expectations.

About the bible, I can say that Paul must have said and written more than what we have. And we have no idea just what he taught except the few letters that we have in the bible. But if that is all he did, what is in the bible, I can say that most of his time must have been having fun. Because, really, there is not decades of life in those letters that we have. And I am sure that he made mistakes...this is why we only have what we have....perhaps.

Edited July 8, 2012 by why me

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

In the rush to condemn and marginalize Elder Bruce R. McConkie it would be well to again take note of who the man really was.

An Apostle of the Lord who gave one of the greatest last sermons in modern day LDS history...indeed!

[ERayR]

If McConkie could admit to being wrong about one thing, it opens up the possibility that he was wrong about a lot of other things.

I just wish that his teachings weren't so prevalent in the CES.

Yes it does so who do I believe him or you? OH WHERE MUST I TURN FOR GUIDANCE?

[Craig Paxton]

The words I would use are the words I did use.

Now, please answer my question.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Ah...what question would that be Wade?

Thanks,-Craig Paxton-

[wenglund]

Ah...what question would that be Wade?

Thanks,-Craig Paxton-

It is the question I asked, but you didn't address, in the post you followed up with a question of your own that I had already answered in the post you were following up on. Here it is again:

"However, do we all agree that the relatively few things we may disagree with Bro. McKonkie, are inconsequential in relation to our growth in faith in the restored gospel, and certainly not the kinds of things that ought to be used to take the measure of the man over time?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 9, 2012 by wenglund

[ERayR]

The answer to the question posed in the topic heading is a resounding YES!!!. There are things they missed but the biggest problems critics and anti-Mormons have with them is the things they got right and the faithful members will sort out the mistakes and continue to honor what the got right and what they have done.

[Rivers]

Yes it does so who do I believe him or you? OH WHERE MUST I TURN FOR GUIDANCE?

Neither.

[ERayR]

Neither.

Are you going to leave me out here all alone with nobody to turn to?

[cinepro]

The answer to the question posed in the topic heading is a resounding YES!!!. There are things they missed but the biggest problems critics and anti-Mormons have with them is the things they got right and the faithful members will sort out the mistakes and continue to honor what the got right and what they have done.

I realize not everyone is expected to read every single post in long threads, but it shouldn't be too much to expect people to read the first line of the first post:

For the purpose of this post let me state emphatically that I am only referring to those teachings that have been shown to be false….and I freely acknowledge that many of their timeless teachings continue as touchstones of inspiration for many in the church today.